While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.

That's not the impression I got. This was a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. The only thing that can overcome that is an amendment to the Iowa state constitution and from what I've read that doesn't seem likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.

Encouraging for those who support gay marriage yes, discouraging for those of us that don't. I tend to agree that the pro-gay marriage movement does seem to be gaining more momentum in the United States and with a victory like this in the American heartland, as opposed to the northeast U.S. or California, the victory seems even more significant. As this issue is currently being sidestepped by the U.S. federal government and left to individual states to address I'm wondering if this issue will be big enough to cause people to move to states that espouse their particular stance on gay marriage.

Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!

I'm wondering if this issue will be big enough to cause people to move to states that espouse their particular stance on gay marriage.

That's an interesting question. More so if one considers the possibility that someday same-sex marriages might be recognized in all 50 states. I wonder if we could look to inter-racial marriage as some sort of benchmark.

Perhaps all "marriages" should be civil unions with minimal government intervention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time Magazine

There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred. Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. "

I honestly believe that could solve a lot of these problems. If the government just recognizes civil unions between two consenting adults, there would be no religious uproar and couples could still Marry traditionally in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, under sea cave, etc. and be married in the eyes of their religion but have a civil union for tax reasons.

While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Char Ell

That's not the impression I got. This was a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. The only thing that can overcome that is an amendment to the Iowa state constitution and from what I've read that doesn't seem likely.

California supreme court voted the ban off and 6 months later the population voted the ban to be part of the California constitution. I went from proud and honored to be in California to outright disgusted to be apart of this country within 6 months.

I wont celebrate until I'm sure it will stick. Until then, it is just an opportunity for the general populous to screw us over again.

And yeah, I know its cynical. Its a great step in the right direction, but we've been taking steps and having to jump back for awhile now over this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

Perhaps all "marriages" should be civil unions with minimal government intervention.

Agreed. If the word Marriage has that much of a meaning, the government should drop the word entirely from legal documents to even the playing field.

I remember, when I was in Arizona, when my mother forced me to go to church (like she does every sunday) and they played a video of a bishop arguing aginst the new law leagalizing gay marrage. He was urging as many catholics to sighn a petition to block gay marrage. He ironicly argued that the court ruled aginst "the will of the people" and "forced the gay's beliefs on the rest of society" so to speak. I wish i could remember what he said better.

Whoever believes the gays are "forcing their beliefs on the rest of society" got it completely backwards, if you know what i mean.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with just making all "marriages" into Civil Unions, cuts out religion altogether.

Marriage is a lot like bingo.

There are people who win some and lose some. Some are better than it than others. Winners generally play their cards right. The priestly class makes a lot of money off of it. But neither marriage or bingo actually belong to religion. They're both secular activities exploited by religious cults.

Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

Nope, because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.

Quote:

I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.

Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.

Nope, because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.

Then you can't say that there aren't incidents that a person can be denied something based on their sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mur'phon

Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.

How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.

Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.

Yes and the consequences of certain laws deny fundamental rights to certain people based on unfair criteria.

It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Pedophiles prey on children and take away their rights and by doing so commit crimes. Gay couples in love do not violate anyone's rights by being homosexual. This is a terrible and inaccurate analogy. I expected something low out of you, Garfy, but not this low. Good job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed.
(Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead)

As I told you a page ago, gay marriage does not lead into polygamy or pedophilia and no lawyer worth their degree would argue that in court. So just shut the hell up with your horribly bigoted thinking.

There simply is no rational argument for disallowing marriage to someone of the same gender. Superstitious reasons exist, but these aren't rational reasons and, thus, are not valid. Marriage is a secular process and social construct that has been perverted and exploited by religious cults in order to ensure the survival of the individual cult. This much is clear in both the archaeological and historical records and (only the truly ignorant maintain that marriage is solely a religious construct).

The argument that allowing same sex partners to marry is akin to pedophilia is ignorant and irrational fallacy meant only to malign and argue ad hominem with a straw man rather than to demonstrate a rational reason for disallowing same-sex marriage. One does not permit or allow the other and only the ignorant or the disingenuous would maintain such a position.

It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.

Specifically which ones? And if you can get a judiciary to sanction "gay marriage", how is it that they can't make the two equal by judicial fiat (or at least in states where the judges have decided it's ok)? They've proven in CA that they are pretty adept at overriding the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. It's also not unheard of for "activist" judges to override legislatures when they think they've gone too far for that judges taste. So, if civil unions are made equal under the law to marriages in terms of legal rights, what harm (legally)? What you're really battling for is not just acceptance but societal norming of certain behavior. That will take longer than the acts of a few judges or even legislators. You need to change an entire culture(or significant majority of it) for that to take place. I'm sure the polygamists and others are watching this with baited breath. Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.

Wonderfull, then let's go for my favored solution. Mariage/civil unions are no longer providing any benefits, legal or otherwise as far as the govt/judicary is concerned. People are free to call their relationship with another person whatever they like, while other people are free to call said relationship whatever they like. No government involved.

Appeal to Tradition. Fail.
I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.
In any case, slippery slope fallacy. Fail.

Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

MMM, not exactly. Good try, though.
=========================
Facts:
1) We all saw how things were voted upon and voted against last November.

This would imply the "culture" is largely still against it, no matter how 'secularized' and "diversified".

All it shows is that California still has a way to go. And I'd hardly consider that the culture is 'largely' against it given the 52/48 split on the issue. Hopefully by the time it comes up again, the balance will have shifted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

2) In reaction, the gays are so outraged they are on the tirade now taking it to higher judicial authorities claiming/arguing this is not an issue to be voted upon.

Interestingly in contradiction their hopeful stance of earlier that it would be voted in I might also add.

Yeah, how dare the gays be outraged that their rights have been taken away from them based on the vote of the majority. How dare they be angry that they are not able to receive the same benefits under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. Honestly, how dare they.

Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.

Wrong (again ). Skin didn't debunk anything. All he managed to do was gainsay Garf's point in an attempt to slap it aside. Even falls prey to your "appeal to the masses logical fallacy". I daresay that given that both subjects--gay marriage and polygamy--seem taboo to most of society, it'd have similiar responses to both. It's not rational for a society to say it's ok now for gays to marry, but not polygamists. It reflects nothing more than another arguable unjustifiable bias vs consenting adults who, as Skin pointed out, aren't involved in the relationship anyway. Try to be less messy with your "logic".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skin

That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.

Quote:

Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

Take your own advice and read more carefully. What I said was that the agenda is driven not toward merely forcing/getting society to accept gay marriage but to see it as a societal norm. In order to achieve that, society has to come to the conclusion that the position is acceptable. It's not a question of logic at that point, but human nature. If you weren't blinded by your own political position on the subject you might have understood that. The person engaging in fallacious thinking here is you, not me.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why can’t you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.